valMEhttps://valme.io/
//valme.io/rss/all/tag/terrorism/en-usSun, 15 Sep 2019 05:19:02 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/x5sqs/killer-viruses-should-we-make-them
We all have previously learned about the Great Flu Pandemic of 1918, which killed between 20-40 million people worldwide in our history classes. Now with the advance of modern molecular biology techniques, it is entirely possible to create a new "killer virus" with the potential of igniting another global pandemic.

That's exactly what virologist Ron Fouchier and his team from the Netherlands did, and now they want to publish their results. By publishing how they succeeded in creating a new highly virulent flu strain (an altered strain of H5N1 that is easily transmissible via aerosol between ferrets), this scientific knowledge may inspire additional attempts to recreate this strain for bioterrorism acts.

Dual-use research has been debated for its usefulness to modern society; is it worth the risk of an accidental outbreak when it could potentially lead to the development of life-saving vaccines? The definition of dual-use is research that may offer some public health benefit, but could also be used for more sinister purposes such as bioterrorism.

As a molecular microbiologist who has previously worked with several dangerous pathogens, I have encountered many research projects that could be considered dual-use or, in more common terms, "a double-edged sword." Some examples include filovirus virulence studies, using non-human primates (NHP) to determine the lethal dose of a specific strain of Ebola or Marburg virus. Without truly understanding the disease mechanism and pathogenesis of a dangerous organism, it is difficult to construct a vaccine without a specific target to address.

In that respect, I support what Dr. Fouchier and his team attempted; however, it would depend whether their facility has extremely tight security and stringent laboratory protocols to prevent any mishaps. In this regard, my expectations and those of the international scientific community should be that this H5N1 strain be stored and worked on within a biosafety-level 4 (BSL-4) facility; the highest bio-containment designation for infectious diseases.

With the potential for a possible outbreak of this virulent airborne H5N1 strain and with research being conducted with other potentially pandemic viruses, an international risk assessment system was previously proposed in order to approve experiments that may be considered "dangerous" to public health. However, these efforts thankfully failed to develop, allowing researchers more scientific freedom, since most countries do not have formal regulations to review studies before they begin. On the contrary, the U.S. has several institutional review boards who may approve or deny an experiment from starting depending on several factors, such as whether the study has been previously conducted, budget costs, animal safety, and scientific relevance, to name a few.

While scientific freedom has always been the main goal for many, it is entirely the researchers' and the host facility's responsibility to ensure that the proper bio-containment protocols are in place before, during and after the research is completed. At the same time, it is the international scientific community’s and the general public's responsibility to make sure all questions are asked and answered in satisfactory detail regarding the overall safety of public health when experimenting with potentially pandemic viruses. While the international scientific community can verify these details via internal review boards and possibly even the formerly proposed risk assessment system, non-scientific individuals within the general public do have a chance to ask questions online via scientific ethics communities. One specific website called the OEC (Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Research) provides specific cases and scenarios of questionable scientific ethics for study. Another community, the Union of Concerned Scientists, tackles scientific integrity issues while also providing information how awareness can be made of specific issues.

Although this specific H5N1 example is being touted as the "next possible pandemic flu," bacterial and viral genetic studies have always been investigated ever since Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA. As long as these bio-containment protocols are (hopefully) in effect, the general public need not worry.

In conclusion, while some people may denounce Dr. Fouchier's H5N1 work and demand that it should never have occurred in the first place, I, for one, applaud his creativity and determination in order to unlock clues about H5N1 virulence that were previously unknown. With these ground-breaking virulence studies, we are better-equipped and more knowledgeable about which genetic targets to pursue for future vaccine construction experiments. The ultimate key for success lies in conducting these experiments in safety, under the correct corresponding conditions and bio-containment facilities.

The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teachings of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion or civic and social institutions rather than an all-powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves, namely their great protector - the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to Wikileaks revelations is so predictable. They say, 'See, we told you, the world is a dangerous place,' so goes their claim. 'We must prosecute or even assassinate those responsible for publishing the leaks. Then we must redouble our efforts to police the world by spying and meddling better with no more leaks,' so they say.

Perhaps that's something to ponder as we consider why Obama has just reauthorized Bush's "national emergency" order for its 10th year. Ron Paul might be right. There might be an "enemy to slay." But are we focused on the wrong enemy?

Presidential Documents

Notice of September 9, 2011

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States. Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2011. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

]]>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 18:11:08 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/59sqs/the-enemy-to-slay-in-a-constant-state-of-emergencybraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/p6sqs/osama-bin-laden-is-dead-long-live-emmanuel-goldstein
In light of the claim that Osama bin Laden has now been killed, we thought it might be a good idea to remind everyone of George Orwell's famous character in the novel 1984: Emmanuel Goldstein.

Emmanuel Goldstein is a character in George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Despite being a key part of the story, he is only actually seen and heard on telescreen, and may in fact be nothing more than a propaganda fabrication of the Ministry of Truth ("Minitrue")...

In the novel, Goldstein is rumoured to be a former top member of the ruling (and sole) Party who had broken away early in the movement and started an organization known as "The Brotherhood", dedicated to the fall of The Party. The novel raises but leaves unanswered the questions of whether Goldstein, "The Brotherhood," or even "Big Brother" really exist.

Each member of "The Brotherhood" is required to read the book supposedly written by Goldstein, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. Each person is said to have three or four contacts at one time which are replaced as people disappear, so that if a member is captured, he can only give up three or four others.

Goldstein is always the subject of the "Two Minutes Hate," a daily, 2-minute period beginning at 11:00 AM at which a purported image of Goldstein is shown on the telescreen (a one-channel television with surveillance devices in it that cannot be turned off). The reader may surmise that a political opposition to Big Brother-namely, Goldstein-was psychologically necessary in order to provide an internal enemy posing a threat to the rule of the Party; the constantly reiterated ritual of the Two Minutes Hate help ensure that popular support for and devotion towards Big Brother is continuous.

It is never revealed whether Goldstein really exists. In fact, Inner Party member O'Brien adamantly refuses to reveal whether The Brotherhood truly exists when asked by Winston in the torture room:

Winston: Does the Brotherhood exist?

O'Brien: That, Winston, you will never know. If we choose to set you free when we have finished with you, and if you live to be ninety years old, still you will never learn whether the answer to that question is Yes or No. As long as you live it will be an unsolved riddle in your mind.

Although O'Brien claims to have collaborated in writing the book himself, his statement still leaves the questions of Goldstein and the Brotherhood's existence unanswered, as it could have been an untrue statement made by O'Brien in order to manipulate Winston's thinking and break his spirit.

]]>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 10:56:22 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/p6sqs/osama-bin-laden-is-dead-long-live-emmanuel-goldsteinbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/26sqs/people-who-live-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones
The US government consists of a bunch of hypocrites. I know, tell you something you don't know, right?

]]>Sun, 01 Oct 2017 07:43:50 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/26sqs/people-who-live-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stonesbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/3vsqs/americas-leading-leftist-intellectual-is-angry
"America's leading leftist intellectual" and MIT professor Noam Chomsky once remarked that "The U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients." He has said "that there is no War on Terror." He was recently interviewed about Barack Obama. He said that he thinks Obama is worse than George Bush (e.g., he's escalated the war against Afghanistan, he vetoed the UN Security Council's resolution calling for Israeli settlements to be condemned as illegal and seeking to halt construction, "he's directly involved in supporting criminal actions"). He thinks the Nuremberg principles should be applied to Obama. Do you agree with him?

FTA:

Obama is a man of absolutely no principles. He has two constituencies. One of them is the popular constituency, the people who voted for him. For them he is doing essentially nothing. He has another constituency: the people who financed his campaign, the financial institutions. And they are getting rewarded. Obama came in the middle of the financial crisis so the first issue was what to do with the economic crisis? Well, he put together an economic team to deal with it but take a look at them. The business press went through the appointments and pointed out that these people should be getting subpoenas and should not be fixing the economy. They are the people who wrecked it. Nevertheless, they were picked by Obama to put bandages on it...

Anything that involves wealth and power is essentially left untouched. There was an effort to do something about the regulation of the financial industry. It's better than nothing, but when you look at it, it has all kind of loopholes that have to be filled in by legislation and the lobbyists are already all over it. The lobbyists are making sure that the legislation will be such that it leaves the financial institutions alone. The major problem is the regulation and the government's insurance policies. The government does give insurance policies to financial institutions. It is called "too big to fail". It is telling Goldman Sachs you can make any kind of risky transaction you may like, since it is risky you will make a lot of money, it will collapse at one point but don't worry the tax payers will come and bail you out. So of course we are having a financial crisis. These are Obama's policies.

]]>Sun, 01 Oct 2017 05:42:40 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/3vsqs/americas-leading-leftist-intellectual-is-angrybraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/pdsqs/american-concentration-camps-greasing-the-skids-for-martial-law
No, they aren't Nazi concentration camps. But they are similar (and very similar to when the US government rounded up 120,000 Americans citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, an action with which the US Supreme Court sanctioned). They're called "residential centers" but, by looking at one, you will not be able to differentiate it from a prison - double fences, flood lights, barbed wire to keep people from getting out, slides and swings for children and, at the main entrance... railroad tracks, just like Nazi Germany. Run by FEMA, Halliburton built them and holds the contracts. William Lewis has claimed he's identified over 800 detention facilities across the US, all created by a bill called H.R. 645, National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. Rep. Steve Cohen, a co-sponsor of the bill, claims that these camps don't exist. The sign at the entrance says that you will be criminally prosecuted if you bring in any instrument that could aid in an escape. If there is a "national emergency," the Council of Governors can quarantine the country into ten sectors and take control from the governors and state legislatures. Thousands of coffins made by a company connected to Halliburton were being stockpiled in a storage yard (and quickly moved after they were discovered).

Meanwhile... They're called fusion centers, and they are popping up all over the country (72 in all so far). They are command centers that gather and analyze information from around the country purportedly to prevent terrorism. They combine 55 agencies of federal, state, and local police enforcement. Each fusion center is purportedly managed separately (e.g., they are not managed nor overseen by the federal government). Who are their targets? People like peace protesters. Put this fact in the context that Wal-Mart will be showing a "video message" from the Department of Homeland Security asking people to look out for "suspicious" activity and report it (later to be rolled out to malls, retail outlets, and hotels across the United States).

Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel once said "There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." There is now a significant amount of evidence that American concentration camps have been built and that the American government is preparing for martial law. What we need is a story that ties the evidence together. Jesse Ventura has provided one. As to the accuracy of the story, that judgment is left to you. The government holds many secrets. Wikileaks is proving how serious these secrets are and how the "official" government story is usually anything but true. After completing production, Tru-TV pulled this particular episode of Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory and wouldn't allow it to air. Why? It is unclear how long these videos will be up, so watch them while you can... and speak out... while you still can.

]]>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:29:39 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/pdsqs/american-concentration-camps-greasing-the-skids-for-martial-lawbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/48sqs/suppressed-war-crimes
The cover-up of the Iraq war is significant. Whereas many of us suspected it, WikiLeaks has provided the facts to support the truth. And the truth is - the US government has been lying to everyone (as the mainstream media attempts to do damage control with personality attacks). Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame, in the past administration as well as in the current. They should all be ashamed. We now have the facts to support that people working for the US government have committed war crimes or have been accessories. Daniel Ellsberg is a man who has earned respect. So has Julian Assange (some even think he should win the Nobel Peace prize). Do you think it's time for the US government to turn over people to the International Criminal Court at The Hague?

FTA:

Nearly 40 years ago I leaked the Pentagon papers - a top secret 7,000-page study of US decision-making during the Vietnam war which revealed repeated lies and cover-ups by the administration. The Iraq war logs, published this weekend by Wikileaks, could be even more significant.

As with Vietnam, we have again seen evidence of a massive cover-up over a number of years by the American authorities. The logs reveal the human consequences of the continuing Iraq war, which have been concealed from the western public for too long: the countless instances of torture; the killing of hundreds of civilians at roadside checkpoints.

Now we know that the Pentagon, which claimed in the early years of the Iraq invasion either that it didn't count casualties or that it had no evidence of them, was indeed keeping meticulous records all along. It has reports of 66,000 civilian casualties - 15,000 of which were completely unknown to Iraq Body Count, the only public attempt to log the war's victims. That means 15,000 deaths that never made any news report - five times the number murdered on 9/11. It certainly would be news if they were American or British deaths. That's 15,000 families who've suffered huge anguish and who may potentially have been motivated to seek revenge against American or allied troops. For the Pentagon to lie or try to hide this kind of carnage can only be self-defeating.

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:17:31 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/48sqs/suppressed-war-crimesbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/08sqs/could-wikileaks-have-prevented-911
There is enough evidence now to implicate the US government of a massive cover-up of 9/11. At this point, it's ignorant to claim otherwise. Yet, the only ones who suffer from the terrible events of 9/11 are the surviving families and friends of victims, the first responders who are still alive, as well as the entire US population whose civil rights are but a memory. Not only was the US government unscathed; they actually became significantly more powerful. What if an organization like WikiLeaks had been around before 9/11 - could 9/11, and the subsequent destruction of civil liberties, have been prevented? Is it possible that WikiLeaks has information implicating the US government's involvement in 9/11 right now?

FTA:

If WikiLeaks had been around in 2001, could the events of 9/11 have been prevented? The idea is worth considering.

The organization has drawn both high praise and searing criticism for its mission of publishing leaked documents without revealing their source, but we suspect the world hasn't yet fully seen its potential. Let us explain.

There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out...

WikiLeaks might have provided a pressure valve for those agents who were terribly worried about what might happen and frustrated by their superiors' seeming indifference. They were indeed stuck in a perplexing, no-win ethical dilemma as time ticked away. Their bosses issued continual warnings against "talking to the media" and frowned on whistle-blowing, yet the agents felt a strong need to protect the public...

Decisions to speak out inside or outside one's chain of command - let alone to be seen as a whistle-blower or leaker of information - is fraught with ethical and legal questions and can never be undertaken lightly. But there are times when it must be considered. Official channels for whistle-blower protections have long proved illusory. In the past, some government employees have gone to the media, but that can't be done fully anonymously, and it also puts reporters at risk of being sent to jail for refusing to reveal their sources. For all of these reasons, WikiLeaks provides a crucial safety valve.

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:33:05 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/08sqs/could-wikileaks-have-prevented-911braincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/72sqs/the-mind-machine-project
In his prophetic novel 1984, George Orwell described a facecrime: "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself - anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence." Have you ever said something resentful about government? Then you might be a potential terrorist and should be placed under surveillance. As dissent with government is at an all-time high, especially with those calling themselves "liberal" and "very liberal," what are the ramifications of this "practical" technology?

FTA:

Imagine using the same technology to locate a lone bomber before he carries out his terrorist act and to identify a troubled veteran or first responder ground down by tragedies and violence.

Stop imagining...

A Swiss professor working with a Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist who heads the Mind Machine Project there outlined how this program operates through computerized scanning of phone calls and electronic messages sent through e-mail and social networking mechanisms...

"The computer system detects resentment in conversations through measurements in decibels and other voice biometrics," he said. "It detects obsessiveness with the individual going back to the same topic over and over, measuring crescendos."

As for written transmissions scrutinized by the computer program, it can detect the same patterns of fixation on specified subjects, said Guidere, who has worked for years screening mass data that involves radicalization and ideological indoctrination...

He said lone bombers, in particular, are not mentally deranged but harbor hatred and deep resentment toward government. Their emotional spikes, Guidere explained, can be identified by the computer program.

The practical side is that once the individual has been identified, the information can be passed along to authorities so surveillance can begin, he said.

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:11:53 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/72sqs/the-mind-machine-projectbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/n2sqs/licensed-to-kill
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blow job. But here we have President Obama, a constitutional lawyer and professor, who is technically now a dictator without anyone calling for impeachment (not to suggest that the same wasn't true about George Bush). The Fifth Amendment specifically states: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Do Democrats understand that Obama is destroying the Democratic party? (And here's a scary thought: the dictatorial power Obama has amassed will then pass to a Republican.) How has the American government come to sink so low that it kills American citizens without due process and then claims it can do so in complete secrecy? As Marcy Wheeler put it, "Judge, we don’t really want to explain why we think we have the authority to target American citizens with no due process, we just do."

FTA:

At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration last late night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims... But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate its legality.

...I would hope that nobody needs me or anyone else to explain why this assertion of power is so pernicious -- at least as pernicious as any power asserted during the Bush/Cheney years. If the President has the power to order American citizens killed with no due process, and to do so in such complete secrecy that no courts can even review his decisions, then what doesn't he have the power to do?

...Obama's now asserting a power so radical -- the right to kill American citizens and do so in total secrecy, beyond even the reach of the courts -- that it's "too harsh even for" one of the most far-right War on Terror cheerleading-lawyers in the nation. But that power is certainly not "too harsh" for the kind-hearted Constitutional scholar we elected as President... One other thing, as always: vote Democrat, because the Republicans are scary!

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:33:59 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/n2sqs/licensed-to-killbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/w2sqs/theyre-coming-for-you-next
Pastor Martin Niemöller criticized German intellectuals because they did nothing as the Nazis rose to power and eliminated anti-government groups. Please, learn from history. Please, don't ignore these crimes by the American government, no matter what country you reside. Please, speak out at the top of your lungs. Please, get mad as hell. Please.

FTA:

On September 24, Jason Ditz reported on Antiwar.com that "the FBI is confirming that this morning they began a number of raids against the homes of antiwar activists in Illinois, Minneapolis, Michigan, and North Carolina, claiming that they are 'seeking evidence relating to activities concerning the material support of terrorism.'"

..."Violent extremism" is one of those undefined police state terms that will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. In this morning's FBI foray into the homes of American citizens of conscience, it means antiwar activists, whose activities are equated with "the material support of terrorism," just as conservatives equated Vietnam era antiwar protesters with giving material support to communism.

Antiwar activist Mick Kelly, whose home was raided, sees the FBI raids as harassment to intimidate those who organize war protests. I wonder if Kelly is underestimating the threat. The FBI's own words clearly indicate that the federal police agency and the judges who signed the warrants do not regard antiwar protesters as Americans exercising their Constitutional rights, but as unpatriotic elements offering material support to terrorism. "Material support" is another of those undefined police state terms. In this context the term means that Americans who fail to believe their government's lies and instead protest its policies, are supporting their government's declared enemies and, thus, are not exercising their civil liberties but committing treason.

As this initial FBI foray is a softening up move to get the public accustomed to the idea that the real terrorists are their fellow citizens here at home, Kelly will get off this time. But next time the FBI will find emails on his computer from a "terrorist group" set up by the CIA that will incriminate him. Under the practices put in place by the Bush and Obama regimes, and approved by corrupt federal judges, protesters who have been compromised by fake terrorist groups can be declared "enemy combatants" and sent off to Egypt, Poland, or some other corrupt American puppet state - Canada perhaps - to be tortured until confession is forthcoming that antiwar protesters and, indeed, every critic of the US government, are on Osama bin Laden's payroll...

An American Police State was inevitable once Americans let "their" government get away with 9/11. Americans are too gullible, too uneducated, and too jingoistic to remain a free people. As another Nazi leader Herman Goering said, "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace-makers for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger." This is precisely what the Bush and Obama regimes have done. America, as people of my generation knew it, no longer exists.

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:16:51 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/w2sqs/theyre-coming-for-you-nextbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/nmsqs/teaching-sex-and-terrorism-to-children
In 1991, John Taylor Gatto, New York City Teacher of the Year (1989, 1990, and 1991), New York State Teacher of the Year (1991), and author of The Underground History of American Education, wrote the following resignation in the Wall Street Journal: "I've taught public school for 26 years but I just can't do it anymore. For years I asked the local school board and superintendent to let me teach a curriculum that doesn't hurt kids, but they had other fish to fry. So I'm going to quit, I think. I've come slowly to understand what it is I really teach: A curriculum of confusion, class position, arbitrary justice, vulgarity, rudeness, disrespect for privacy, indifference to quality, and utter dependency. I teach how to fit into a world I don't want to live in... I can't teach this way any longer. If you hear of a job where I don't have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know."

For ages, parents have pawned the responsibility of their children over to government. As a result, government has long been in charge of what our children do and do not learn in school. Schools are now primarily indoctrination centers for social agendas. Is it appropriate for educators to teach kids about sex, contraception, private body parts, erotic art, or terrorism and, if so, under what conditions? Considering how poorly so many schools are teaching students, might teaching these subjects have the opposite effect?

FTA:

A proposed sex education program that teaches fifth-graders the different ways people have intercourse and first-graders about gay love has infuriated parents and forced the school board to take a closer look at the issue...

Parents appeared most worried about pieces of the plan that teaches first-graders about same-gender relationships, fifth-graders that sexual intercourse includes "vaginal, oral, or anal penetration," and high school students about erotic art. The curriculum would also teach kindergartners anatomical terms such as penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum and uterus...

Supporters say the proposed health education curriculum contains honest, science-based information on wellness and allows students to make better decisions... "This is about reality and truth so our kids don't grow up in La-La Land, and have sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions.

A high school teacher who assigned her class to plan a terrorist attack that would kill as many innocent Australians as possible had no intent to promote terrorism, education officials said Wednesday.

The Year 10 students at Kalgoorlie-Boulder Community High School in the state of Western Australia were given the assignment last week in a class on contemporary conflict and terrorism...

"It's something they would probably do in some radical school in Indonesia. For it to be done in the state education system is mind-blowing," he told the newspaper.

The students were asked to pretend they were terrorists making a political statement by releasing a chemical or biological agent on "an unsuspecting Australian community," according to a copy of the assignment received by the West Australian newspaper.

The task included choosing the best time to attack and explaining their choice of victims and what effects the attack would have on a human body.

"Your goal is to kill the MOST innocent civilians in order to get your message across," the assignment read.

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:25:40 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/nmsqs/teaching-sex-and-terrorism-to-childrenbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/3ssqs/perception-vs-reality
Will someone please remind me again why the Europeans and Americans are at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, killing anywhere from hundreds of thousands of people to, by some estimates, over 1 million? Would someone also please remind me who dropped the bombs on Japan that killed 250,000 innocent men, women, and children civilians? Three words come to mind: pot - kettle - black.

FTA: "Perception is not reality. Due to the right wing's influence and propaganda, people mistakenly think that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the Western world. It is even a commonly held belief that Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat-that the very survival of the Western world is at stake. Of course, the reality is that there are other groups that engage in terrorism on a much larger scale, yet these terrorist incidents are minimized... a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups..."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:57:04 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/3ssqs/perception-vs-realitybraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/4ssqs/liberals-finally-speak-out
Guess you can't call them hypocrites for this particular action, unlike most liberals who railed against Bush but now ignore the fact that Obama has continued with (and gone beyond) Bush’s anti-terror policies. Are so-called "intellectuals" getting restless with their own people? Sadly, it appears that not all actors are getting restless. (See, for example, Woody Allen's comments: "I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him... It would good… if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly." Woody Allen Says Obama Should Become a Dictator - http://www.infowars.com/woody-allen-says-obama-should-become-a-dictator/) Anyone think we would all be better off if Obama was a dictator?

FTA: "US actors and liberal intellectuals joined a list to be published Friday of nearly 2,000 people accusing President Barack Obama of allowing human rights violations and war crimes."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:25:11 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/4ssqs/liberals-finally-speak-outbraincrave Reaction ]]>https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/gssqs/action-reaction
Newton's Third Law suggests that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Is it morally proper for people to develop into militias to defend themselves and act in defiance of terrorist acts of mass murder? If not, what other realistic alternatives do they have? (Voting? Don't make me laugh.)

FTA: "Imagine that... a foreign military power begins flying remote-controlled warplanes over your town, using onboard missiles to kill hundreds of your innocent neighbors... And finally, imagine that when you turn on your television, you see the perpetrator nation's tuxedo-clad leader cracking stand-up comedy jokes about drone strikes - jokes that prompt guffaws from an audience of that nation's elite... Though we don't like to call it mass murder, the U.S. government's undeclared drone war in Pakistan is devolving into just that. As noted by a former counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and a former Army officer in Afghanistan, the operation has become a haphazard massacre.

"Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders," David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum wrote in 2009. "But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:21:02 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/gssqs/action-reactionbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/8qsqs/they-hate-us-for-our-freedom
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad - including two Reuters news staff. FTA: "The important thing to keep in mind when watching this video, as well as reading about the Afghanistan massacre, is this: they hate us for our Freedom!" Warning - very disturbing footage.

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:45:31 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/8qsqs/they-hate-us-for-our-freedombraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/2qsqs/us-admits-afghan-atrocities
The US government and NATO forces are a bunch of murderers. Like Dick Cheney, who goes on national television to rub in our faces that he authorized and sanctioned torture of innocent people knowing that no one will hold him accountable, now general McChrystal, the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, proudly proclaims to the world: "We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat."

FTA: "Now, what would the authorities say if you or I shot "an amazing number of people who have never proven to be a threat?" Why, they would call us murderers - even mass murderers. Yet this is precisely what "the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan" has just declared, on videotape."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:42:02 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/2qsqs/us-admits-afghan-atrocitiesbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/wzqqs/911-challenging-the-official-theory
A thousand architects and engineers want to know how 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust. how did massive steel beams suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? Even Obama is trying to get rid of 9/11 skeptics by infiltrating and provoking them. Why is the government so worried about kooks in tinfoil hats anyway? Could they be onto something?

FTA: "Before we yell "conspiracy theory," we should be aware that the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory. They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This evidence is not going to go away. If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the Commission's legal counsel, all of whom have written books in which they clearly state that they were lied to by government officials when they conducted their investigation..."

"The morons in Washington are pushing the envelope of nuclear war. The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of "their" government, are facilitating this outcome."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 05:53:00 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/wzqqs/911-challenging-the-official-theorybraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/lcqqs/terrorizing-the-irs
Today, a man committed suicide by flying his plane into an IRS office. I think this is only the beginning of more to come. The IRS has been terrorizing people illegally for decades. The courts and misnamed Department of Justice have completely participated in the fraud and also actively terrorized innocent people. Perhaps some will call Joe Stack a terrorist. Perhaps some consider those who fought in the American Revolution terrorists. Or, perhaps, the real terrorists are the IRS, courts, and laughable Department of Justice. (As an aside, it's possible, but unlikely that this is a false flag operation.)

(The suicide note was up at http://embeddedart.com/ until about 12 PM SLT today but has been censored by the FBI [which, as an aside, is another confirmation at what Joe Stack said in his note]. I still have the original up in my browser and can confirm it's real. According to the hosting provider, the webpage had 10 million hits in 2 hours. If you want to read the suicide note, you can find it cached at http://embeddedart.com.nyud.net/)

]]>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:09:52 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/lcqqs/terrorizing-the-irsbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/clqqs/jesse-ventura-conspiracy-theories-and-911
Jesse Ventura did his latest conspiracy theory show on 9/11, something that's been a passion of his since the event. I've followed his interviews over the years and know he knows substantially more than is in the latest show. This show does present some of the important facts, but it doesn't come close to diving into the beyond substantial evidence of not only a government coverup, but direct government involvement in the attack. If you want to see the show, you can find it here in 4 parts:

]]>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:31:51 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/clqqs/jesse-ventura-conspiracy-theories-and-911braincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/vlqqs/in-defense-of-joe-stack
Which do you consider more delusional: flying a plane into a government building in retaliation of government abuse or believing that the government exists to protect your individual rights?

If you answered the former, you're certainly not alone. However, though you might not have thought twice before responding to what appeared to be a silly question, perhaps it's worth considering the moral premises that led to your belief.

Background

de-lu-sion (noun)

(1) a : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded

b : an abnormal mental state characterized by the occurrence of psychotic delusions

(2) a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

On February 18, 2010 at about 10:00 AM, 53-year old father, husband, software engineer, and pilot Joe Stack flew his Piper Cherokee PA-28 airplane into an IRS building in Austin, TX. According to his 6-page suicide note that, only hours later, the FBI censored by forcing the hosting vendor to remove, the basic reason for his action was that the government had destroyed his life. Overly dramatic you think? Although I encourage you to closely read the particular reasoning he used, it isn't my intent to judge or to analyze his thoughts. My intent is to explore and compare the morality of the two proposed delusions.

A useful exercise would be to compare the "hate-filled diatribe" and "rant" of Thomas Jefferson with the "hate-filled diatribe" and "rant" of Joe Stack.

Based on personal experience but understanding the logical problem with making overly broad generalizations, I think that most people I know claim to be moral relativists. A moral relativist is someone who believes values are solely chosen based on personal preferences. In this sense, all values are arbitrary as the morality of a situation depends on how you choose to look at it, how your "culture" considers it, your own experiences, how it impacts "society," and the like. People who claim to be moral relativists make statements such as "there's no such thing as black-or-white," "the world is made of gray," "how can you be so sure you're right," "who decides what's right or wrong," "who are you to judge," "I'm not judgmental," and the like. To keep their logic consistent, those who consider themselves moral relativists (if they consider it at all) either refuse to judge a situation in terms of morality or have a confirmation bias focused on facts within a narrow context. For example, one moral relativist said to me that he wasn't sure if war was right or wrong. Another claimed to me that Joe Stack hurt and killed individuals who did nothing specific to him - they were just people doing their jobs. Ergo, what Joe Stack did was wrong. Fair enough.

Interestingly, for relativists who do judge the morality of a narrow situation, their logic requires them to refuse acknowledgement that they are still dealing in absolutes. For example, to claim that Joe Stack's actions were immoral because he killed individuals who did nothing specific to him are indirectly stating a moral absolute that it is wrong to kill someone who has not specifically harmed you. How does the relativist deal with the obvious absolute? Very simply - he refuses to see it. After all, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? In other words, as long as you are able to deny perception of something, it might as well never have occurred or been a factor. And, as it is only specific factors within a particular context that matter, non-existent factors are, by definition, not factors at all. Refuse to perceive it and it doesn't exist. Kind of a clean, neat trick, don't you think?

So, for those who think "the world is gray," it would make sense that Joe Stack was a deluded, bad person, as he destroyed property and life with his actions without reason. Why is their morality right compared to the converse? Look no further than the context. Easy.

Integrating Knowledge

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his magnum opus that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What was the context? The Declaration of Independence listed the context in terms of grievances (what the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, and CBS News define as "extremist," "rants," and "hate-filled diatribe" for not "reaping the benefits of... functional government"). Grievances against the government included: not following the law, passing laws that are "formidable to tyrants only," "fatiguing [people] into compliance," invading the rights of people, obstructing justice (especially through the establishment of "Judiciary Powers"), creating "Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance," keeping "Standing Armies," holding "mock Trial[s]," "imposing Taxes... without... Consent," "waging War against us," "destroy[ing] the lives of our people," "transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny," and ignoring "Petition[s] for Redress in the most humble terms." That was the context. A useful exercise would be to compare the "hate-filled diatribe" and "rant" of Thomas Jefferson with the "hate-filled diatribe" and "rant" of Joe Stack. Notice any similarities in context?

Clearly, the more knowledge you integrate into context, the harder it becomes to maintain opinions based on relative terms. For example, if you could prove that laws operate to brutalize individuals (e.g., the Nuremberg Laws), would you better understand why it is proper to use brutality in defense of yourself? In other words, if assuming for a moment that the IRS did use brutality against Joe Stack, isn't it more likely you would better understand Joe Stack's decision to brutalize the IRS? (Of course the relativist could argue that theft of property and abuse of civil rights is not brutality.) Some people believe that two wrongs don't make a right. Well, if two wrongs don't make a right, then you would conclude that Joe Stack was not right. However, this begs the question: why is an individual limited to how he can protect himself, while the government/IRS is not? The other question that must be asked is: what other logical choice did Joe Stack have to protect his rights but physical violence? (He indicates in his suicide note that he wrote letters to countless government officials and went through the judicial process, all to no avail.)

Based on his suicide note, Joe Stack likely didn't voluntarily give the government or "society" the authorization to infringe on his rights. Yet it's interesting to note how many in "society" are angry that Joe Stack infringed on their "collective rights" (e.g., destruction of a "public" building and the lives of "public" employees). Relativists quickly retort that the person who died (other than Joe himself) wasn't the "public" - he was an individual. How logical and correct that is. But then who is the public? Was Joe Stack part of the public/society? If so, and if his rights were infringed upon, where was the outrage then? Selective perception does away with this logic problem quite nicely: the IRS agent killed was an individual who had rights, and Joe thus committed a crime against society. But, no matter what wrong Joe incurred, he did not have individual rights and anything that was done to him by the IRS was not a crime against society. Did you understand that logic? Neither did I. Yet that's one of the conundrums relativists attempt to ignore.

From a moral perspective, what is the purpose of law? If the purpose of law is to protect rights, and Joe Stack's rights were not protected and, in fact, were actually destroyed by the very same people who were required to protect them, does this context matter? Legal positivism holds that there isn't any necessary connection between morality and law. Based on this perspective, though it might be unfortunate that Joe Stack's rights were violated, that doesn't give him the right to do what he did. And, of course, they would be correct. Law doesn't give rights. Law attempts to prevent people from infringing on your rights. Ah, but isn't that a moral absolute: if x occurs, you are not allowed to do y? Yes. But who decided that moral absolute? Society. But Joe Stack was part of society, wasn't he? Uh...

Understanding the Inconsistencies

Confused yet by the moral relativist logic? Let's try something simpler. The Nazis are always a reliable example for discussing morality, as clearly what the Nazis did was wrong. The relativist is on solid ground when he claims that the US government was morally correct to defend/protect the victims from Nazi atrocities. However, there are ample examples of people who have been victims of US aggression, both within and without the US. From "tax honesty" victims like Irwin Schiff, Larken Rose, Ed and Elaine Brown, Sherry Peel Jackson, Bob Schulz, to torture victims like Binyam Mohamed, Mohammed al Qahtani, and Omar Deghayes. In fact, Aaron Russo (producer of American classics such as The Rose featuring Bette Midler and Trading Places with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy) produced an excellent documentary called America: From Freedom to Fascism on the horrors from which Joe Stack suffered and ultimately died trying to fight.

But if the US government was morally proper in using aggressive force against Nazi soliders to protect and defend victims, why is it not proper for Joe Stack to use force to protect and defend the likes of Irwin Schiff, Larken Rose, Ed and Elaine Brown, Sherry Peel Jackson, Bob Schultz, Binyam Mohamed, Mohammed al Qahtani, and Omar Deghayes (to name just a few)? Any destruction Joe Stack caused to the US government's "war machine" (I'm including the US government's war on civil liberties in that term) would mean that less US government property and "soldiers" (e.g., IRS agents) exist to destroy civil rights and property rights. Ergo, wasn't Joe Stack's action simply protecting those who were unable to defend themselves against the US government's aggression, just as the US government's actions were to defend people against the Nazis? After all, the Nazis weren't attacking the US government; on the contrary, the US government was actively trying to get into the war. If, in the virtuous name of protecting victims, the US government had the moral authority to attack foreign governments who hadn't harmed Americans, why doesn't Joe Stack have the moral authority to attack the US government who has, in fact, harmed both Americans and non-Americans?

But wait - the Nazis didn't just steal property. They actually exterminated human beings. That is quite different from the circumstances with Joe Stack (remember: limit context). Fair enough. But Joe Stack is also now dead, just as dead as the human beings that the Nazis exterminated. The IRS was able to accomplish an individual extermination without ever pulling a trigger. They motivated Joe to pull the trigger himself just by stealing his property, ignoring his civil rights, and ensuring that he had no chance to get either back. And to think some called the Nazis efficient killers.

It is terrible that Joe Stack felt he had no hope left for ever regaining his rights, much less his property. You might now empathize with him, even if you don't agree with his methods. But where was your empathy when Joe's civil rights were being infringed... when his property was being stolen... when the US government, and specifically the IRS, was destroying his life? Why didn't you have empathy then? Why didn't you stick up for Joe Stack, someone who wasn't able to defend himself against the violence of the IRS? Before February 18, it was only the IRS who used force. Before February 18, Joe Stack had never used violence against anyone. As he said in his suicide note, and as his friends and family indicated, he just wanted to live his life as he saw best and in peace.

I have read comments from people calling Joe Stack's actions selfish. A selfish act is something you do solely for your own advantage. The IRS chose to use force against Joe Stack in order to seize his property. After begging for relief nicely, Joe Stack made the only choice the IRS allowed him: to use force to destroy destruction. The IRS gained much when they stole Joe Stack's property. Yet Joe Stack gained nothing by destroying IRS property or killing an IRS employee. How can you call an action for which you gain nothing "selfish?"

Conclusion

Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. The US government, as a system and as a group of individuals, is guilty of crimes against humanity through the initiation of force. The US government is guilty of destroying the individual rights of so many famous and unknown individuals. Countless individuals have written letters and petitioned for redress. Their voices were like trees falling in an unpopulated forest. The US government has removed the people's ability to fight back. The laws now work to support violence committed by the US government against individuals, while punishing individuals who use violence against the government. This is the expected and intended outcome of the underlying philosophy: moral relativism. Indeed, history repeats itself.

The Declaration of Independence clearly sanctions that individuals have the moral authority to retaliate and destroy governments that abuse the rights of others. No matter how you read his suicide note, that is clearly all Joe Stack was doing - he was retaliating against the government's violent force toward him. When the IRS violated Joe Stack's rights, they placed themselves inside a ring of violence. As any boxer knows, if you go into a ring, be prepared to get hurt. In such a situation, there is no recourse available but force. Violence is the logical result of moral relativism.

Joe Stack was not delusional for wanting freedom, as freedom is not a delusion. Joe Stack killed himself because he wasn't willing to live under the philosophical or legal terms the US government set. Getting to vote on which master restrains you and how heavy the chains that bind you will be is not freedom. Freedom is an absolute. You either have it or you don't.

My sincerest condolences to his family. Rest in peace, Joe Stack. I'm sorry we weren't there to defend you sooner. Your courage and integrity to fight tyranny, and the moral relativistic philosophy that supports it, will be missed.

]]>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:21:50 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/vlqqs/in-defense-of-joe-stackbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/science/infectious_disease/q3qqs/killer-viruses-should-we-make-them
We all have previously learned about the Great Flu Pandemic of 1918, which killed between 20-40 million people worldwide in our history classes. Now with the advance of modern molecular biology techniques, it is entirely possible to create a new "killer virus" with the potential of igniting another global pandemic.

That's exactly what virologist Ron Fouchier and his team from the Netherlands did, and now they want to publish their results. By publishing how they succeeded in creating a new highly virulent flu strain (an altered strain of H5N1 that is easily transmissible via aerosol between ferrets), this scientific knowledge may inspire additional attempts to recreate this strain for bioterrorism acts.

Dual-use research has been debated for its usefulness to modern society; is it worth the risk of an accidental outbreak when it could potentially lead to the development of life-saving vaccines? The definition of dual-use is research that may offer some public health benefit, but could also be used for more sinister purposes such as bioterrorism.

As a molecular microbiologist who has previously worked with several dangerous pathogens, I have encountered many research projects that could be considered dual-use or, in more common terms, "a double-edged sword." Some examples include filovirus virulence studies, using non-human primates (NHP) to determine the lethal dose of a specific strain of Ebola or Marburg virus. Without truly understanding the disease mechanism and pathogenesis of a dangerous organism, it is difficult to construct a vaccine without a specific target to address.

In that respect, I support what Dr. Fouchier and his team attempted; however, it would depend whether their facility has extremely tight security and stringent laboratory protocols to prevent any mishaps. In this regard, my expectations and those of the international scientific community should be that this H5N1 strain be stored and worked on within a biosafety-level 4 (BSL-4) facility; the highest bio-containment designation for infectious diseases.

With the potential for a possible outbreak of this virulent airborne H5N1 strain and with research being conducted with other potentially pandemic viruses, an international risk assessment system was previously proposed in order to approve experiments that may be considered "dangerous" to public health. However, these efforts thankfully failed to develop, allowing researchers more scientific freedom, since most countries do not have formal regulations to review studies before they begin. On the contrary, the U.S. has several institutional review boards who may approve or deny an experiment from starting depending on several factors, such as whether the study has been previously conducted, budget costs, animal safety, and scientific relevance, to name a few.

While scientific freedom has always been the main goal for many, it is entirely the researchers' and the host facility's responsibility to ensure that the proper bio-containment protocols are in place before, during and after the research is completed. At the same time, it is the international scientific community’s and the general public's responsibility to make sure all questions are asked and answered in satisfactory detail regarding the overall safety of public health when experimenting with potentially pandemic viruses. While the international scientific community can verify these details via internal review boards and possibly even the formerly proposed risk assessment system, non-scientific individuals within the general public do have a chance to ask questions online via scientific ethics communities. One specific website called the OEC (Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Research) provides specific cases and scenarios of questionable scientific ethics for study. Another community, the Union of Concerned Scientists, tackles scientific integrity issues while also providing information how awareness can be made of specific issues.

Although this specific H5N1 example is being touted as the "next possible pandemic flu," bacterial and viral genetic studies have always been investigated ever since Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA. As long as these bio-containment protocols are (hopefully) in effect, the general public need not worry.

In conclusion, while some people may denounce Dr. Fouchier's H5N1 work and demand that it should never have occurred in the first place, I, for one, applaud his creativity and determination in order to unlock clues about H5N1 virulence that were previously unknown. With these ground-breaking virulence studies, we are better-equipped and more knowledgeable about which genetic targets to pursue for future vaccine construction experiments. The ultimate key for success lies in conducting these experiments in safety, under the correct corresponding conditions and bio-containment facilities.

This tactic is so common that it was given a name for hundreds of years ago.

“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames...

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks...

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
- Plato

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
- U.S. President James Madison

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
- Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
- Josef Stalin

Between 1946 and 1948, the United States government under President Harry S. Truman in collaboration with Guatemalan President Juan José Arévalo and his health officials deliberately infected more than 1500 soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners and even mental patients with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea and chancroid (a bacterial sexual infection) out of more than 5500 Guatemalan people who participated in the experiments. The worst part of it is that none of the test subjects infected with the diseases ever gave informed consent. The Boston Globe published the discovery made by Medical historian and professor at Wellesley College, Susan M. Reverby in 2010 called ‘Wellesley professor unearths a horror: Syphilis experiments in Guatemala.’

...

After Reverby’s discovery, the Obama administration apparently gave an apology to then-President Alvaro Colom according to the Boston Globe:

Yesterday, Obama called President Álvaro Colom Caballeros of Guatemala to apologize, and Obama’s spokesman told reporters the experiment was “tragic, and the United States by all means apologizes to all those who were impacted by this.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had called Colom Thursday night to break the news to him. In her conversation with the Guatemalan president, Clinton expressed “her personal outrage and deep regret that such reprehensible research could occur,’’ said Arturo Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.

...

Although they were treated with antibiotics, more than 83 people had died according to BBC news in 2011 following a statement issued by Dr Amy Gutmann, head of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues:

The Commission said some 5,500 Guatemalans were involved in all the research that took place between 1946 and 1948. Of these, some 1,300 were deliberately infected with syphilis, gonorrhoea or another sexually transmitted disease, chancroid. And of that group only about 700 received some sort of treatment. According to documents the commission had studied, at least 83 of the 5,500 subjects had died by the end of 1953.

...

However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published the study ‘Fact Sheet on the 1946-1948 U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Inoculation Study’ and was forced to admit what happened in Guatemala during the syphilis experiments:

While conducting historical research on the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis, Professor Susan Reverby of Wellesley College recently discovered the archived papers of the late Dr. John Cutler, a U.S. Public Health Service medical officer and a Tuskegee investigator. The papers described another unethical study supported by the U.S. government in which highly vulnerable populations in Guatemala were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The study, conducted between 1946 and 1948, was done with the knowledge of Dr. Cutler’s superiors and was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to the Pan American Sanitary Bureau (which became the Pan American Health Organization) to several Guatemalan government ministries. The study had never been published.

Then there's Dr. Cyril Broderick, A Liberian scientist and a former professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Liberia’s College of Agriculture and Forestry, who writes:

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is funding Ebola trials on humans, trials which started just weeks before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The reports continue and state that the DoD gave a contract worth $140 million dollars to Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company, to conduct Ebola research. This research work involved injecting and infusing healthy humans with the deadly Ebola virus. Hence, the DoD is listed as a collaborator in a “First in Human” Ebola clinical trial (NCT02041715, which started in January 2014 shortly before an Ebola epidemic was declared in West Africa in March.

While covering Iraq in 1990 – just before the first massive US bombing campaign – I discovered the US and Britain had secretly built a germ weapons arsenal for Iraq to use against Iran in the eight year-Iran-Iraq War.

...

Iraq had no nuclear weapons, as the US falsely claimed. But it did have an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons – delivered by the western powers. All were battlefield arms, not strategic, weapons. None could be delivered more than 100 kms.

...

But what I uncovered in Baghdad was far worse.

I found two British scientists who had been employed at Iraq’s top secret Salman Pak chemical and biowarfare laboratory near Baghdad. The Brits confided to me they were part of a large technical team secretly organized and “seconded” to Iraq in the mid-1980’s by the British government and the MI6 Secret Intelligence Service. Their goal was to develop and “weaponize” anthrax, plague, botulism and other pathogens for use as tactical germ weapons.

The US and Saudi Arabia feared Iran’s Islamic revolution would sweep the Mideast and overthrow its oil monarchs. So Washington and its Arab allies convinced Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, to invade Iran and overthrow its new government. Arms and money flowed to Iraq from the US, Britain, Kuwait and the Saudis.

...

So the US and Britain supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons to break the waves of attacking Iranians. Chemical warfare manufacturing equipment – disguised as insecticide plants – came from Germany, France and Holland. The feed stock for the germ weapons came from a US laboratory in Maryland –approved by the US government.

...

Few Americans know anything about their nation’s support for the demonized Saddam Hussein or the secret biological weapons story. Or that the deadliest biowarfare weapon used in the region was the destruction by the US airpower of Iraq’s water and sewage systems, a crime that led to the deaths, according to UN officials, of over 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, from contaminated water. Iraq is still poisoned by depleted uranium munitions fired by US forces.

The Western powers prevented Iraq from importing chlorine to purify filthy, pest-ridden water, claiming the chlorine could be used in chemical weapons! Lead for school pencils was also banned as a possible nuclear plant component. This from the same nations that had been covertly supplying Iraq with germs and poison gas for use against Iran.